Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

You should not give out personal information which may lead to your being identified, or contacted in person, by email or other means. If you chose to do so, then you also accept all accompanying risks. Aliases and the use of alternate identities, social media accounts, and email addresses are strongly encouraged.

The users simply have to state that their uses of the work meets the definition of fair use according to the copyright office.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]

Looking at the comparison pages the savings is in the terms of double (30) to at the most triple bytes (150) and not anywhere near 50%. Yes the quality is better which alone might be ample reason to switch once it's supported in every major browser and image editing software.

Rightscorp can't claim the subscriber is actually infringing their customers copyright, as their software tool can simply see if the information is available from the host in question but it cannot tell anything else about it. They have no way to know that anyone other than their self has actually downloaded the information in question. They can only guess and I hate to say it but you can't sue over speculation.

54,000 claimed infringements over 64 days sounds like a lot, but it's basically just under once per second, and claiming each time is another incident of infringement. So basically their software is constantly checking the ip, and this could be argued constitutes theft of service since both Cox and the customer in question pays for the bandwidth.

As for them downloading the information themselves, since the tool and the company that runs it is authorized by the copyright holder to search for and access their copyrighted files one could easily argue that no actual infringement taking place.

I also think Cox should establish a reasonable handling charge for investigating and dealing with these automated complaints, I think 10$ per complaint sounds about right. So 54,000 x $10 = $540,000. Plus attorney fees and costs for this frivolous lawsuit.

It's being kept such a secret because the government doesn't want you to know the police are running these devices for the NSA. I can bet you that they are getting copies of anything these things vacuum up.

That's the whole secret here the government has turned the powers of the NSA on the American people in the name of the war on drugs, and the war on crime by claiming they want to fight terrorism. People will give up freedom for that. They will fight tooth and nail the other two reasons. The NSA is providing information directly to local, state, and federal law enforcements on crimes committed by ordinary Americans.

Because the providers are selling me bandwidth. Once they do so it's not their bandwidth any longer, it's mine and so they can't charge netflix for sending me traffic, for fastlanes or anything else It's my bandwidth not theirs..

What the ISP's want to do is charge both sides for the same bandwidth. They also want to discourage cord cutting by making it more expensive.

It comes down to one simple premise; If the ISP's do not have big enough pipes to support their customer base and contractually obligated bandwidth they need to invest in expanding their infrastructure instead of recording it as profits or bonuses for already overpaid executives. It's that simple.

We need to make infringement of a constitutionally protected right both by the government and its agents personally liable in a civil suit. I would say a minimum of $100,000. Then these rights violations will come to a rapid stop.